OTTAWA - The Vatican is calling directly on Catholic politicians around the world to be true to their faith and reject the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops predicted yesterday the appeal may give pause to the federal Parliament as it considers just such legislation.

Catholicism is the dominant religion among federal politicians, as it is in Canadian society.

"What it may do is that it will cause some conscience problems for several MPs," said Monsignor Peter Schonenbach, general secretary of the conference.

But a spokesman for Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister one of many Catholic MPs, said that Minister will base his vote on equality rights, not religion.

"His personal religious beliefs are not the issue here," said Tim Murphy. "He is the Justice Minister for all Canadians. The key things we have pointed out is that this is a fundamental issue of equality and there will be protection for religious freedom."

A federal bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and stating that religious institutions will not be forced to perform ceremonies, has been sent to the Supreme Court to determine whether it complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Liberal government has promised a free vote on the issue, meaning MPs can vote their conscience instead of along party lines. Several Liberal MPs have already expressed their opposition to gay marriage.

Same-sex marriages have been considered legal in British Columbia and Ontario since courts in those provinces ruled prohibiting the marriages violates the Charter of Rights.

On Thursday, the Vatican will release new instructions for Catholic politicians to oppose same-sex marriage, which has already been adopted in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Msgr. Schonenbach described the 12-page document, which is devoted entirely to the issue of same-sex marriage, as "a general reflection that pulls together things that have been said before."

Although the instructions do not specifically mention Canada, Msgr. Schonenbach noted that this country's plans have drawn significant attention from the Church and likely played a role in the Vatican's appeal. He noted he has done interviews with Vatican Radio on the issue.

The document builds on the Pope's approved guidelines for politicians, issued last January, calling on them to oppose abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

Those guidelines said laws safeguarding marriage between man and woman must be promoted and that "in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such."

Jason Kenney, a Canadian Alliance MP who is Catholic and against gay marriage, said he doesn't think the Vatican's call will make much difference.

"Politicians who come from the Catholic tradition whose convictions are formed in part by their faith, this should be nothing new to them and they should already have taken that into consideration," Mr. Kenney said.

"They're all free to decide whether or not, and to what extent, they will form their conscience and actions in accordance with the Church teaching. It's up to each individual."

Mr. Kenney acknowledged that few politicians publicly declare their religious affiliation and are therefore not in a position where they have to answer to voters about faith. The appeal from the Vatican is not expected to sway other powerful Catholics in the Liberal government, including the Prime Minister and his heir apparent, Paul Martin, who intend to vote for the bill.

Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Martin and Mr. Cauchon all come from pre-dominantly Catholic Quebec, where the Church has a loose grip on the province's largely liberal society.

Mr. Chrétien has already come under fire from Marcel Gervais, the Archbishop of Ottawa, over the clash between his Catholic religion and his views on social issues. Most recently, the archbishop denounced the Prime Minister's pro-choice position on abortion.

The Vatican's directive, titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, expands on an appeal from religious institutions across Canada for the federal government to reject same-sex marriage.

As in the Canadian population in general, the Catholicism is the dominant religion in the federal Parliament, although exact records are not kept.

In the general population, 43.2% of Canadians identified themselves as Catholic in the last federal census, which makes the religion by far the most common. In second place was United, the declared faith of 9.6% of Canadians.

This month, a leading German cardinal condemned Germany's same-sex marriage law after it was upheld by the country's supreme court, calling it a blow to the family.

"Now the associations of homosexuals have a potent arm to obtain further concessions on the road toward full equality with married couples, including the right to adoption," Karl Cardinal Lehman complained in a Vatican Radio interview.

The Vatican is particularly worried about the waning influence of the Church in Europe. Drafters of a proposed constitution for the European Union ignored Vatican requests to include explicit mention of Europe's Christian roots.

On Sunday, the Pope lamented that the Church's message was being watered down in Europe.

The Vatican is calling directly on Catholic politicians around the world to be true to their faith and ...

But that's the real kicker, isn't it? For the past few decades, the Church has tolerated almost any and all moral dissent from the left with little or no comment, and almost never real action.

Want to be a rabid pro-abortion politician? Far be it from your bishop to say anything about it. Want to get divorce after divorce and still receive all the sacraments without comment? No problem. Want to make statements like all religions are valid paths to the same God? You won't hear a peep from your bishop saying otherwise.

So the real question is how many truly Catholic MP's even exist, in the sense of truly believing and following the teachings of the Church? I would guess it's a small fraction of the number who call themselves Catholic.

The modern Church culture of moral permissiveness, and failure to condemn sin, is now snowballing. And the Church finds itself without the moral authority necessary to put up much of a fight due to neglect of this duty for so long.

The modern Church culture of moral permissiveness, and failure to condemn sin, is now snowballing. And the Church finds itself without the moral authority necessary to put up much of a fight due to neglect of this duty for so long.

Precisely right. But I'll bet the first time these same politicians propose seizing Church property, they'll find themselves excommunicated--bell, book and candle.

Want to be a rabid pro-abortion politician? Far be it from your bishop to say anything about it.

Looks like the bishop of Ottawa condemned the PM. And in the US, the new bishop of Boston has been outspoken in the past about politicians who don't follow their professed faith. Also Bishop Weigand of Sacramento with Gray Davis, the bishop in North Dakota with Tom Daschle, Archbishop Chaput in Denver, all have confronted pro-aborts et al in the past year.

But you're right, that should be the norm, and it shouldn't be a new thing.

Want to be a rabid pro-abortion politician? Far be it from your bishop to say anything about it. Want to get divorce after divorce and still receive all the sacraments without comment? No problem. Want to make statements like all religions are valid paths to the same God? You won't hear a peep from your bishop saying otherwise.

While you're at it, why not excommunicate all the "catholic politicans" who support abortion too? Take care of one problem and everything else will fall into place. Pedophile priests "repent" only when they are caught. Forgiveness is fine but consequence deters repeat offenders (and defenders).

I'm no Catholic, but I like to see the Holy Father step in and put the smack down on these so-called "Catholic" cretins. Word up to Teddy K. and his so-called "Catholic" ilk.

J.P. II has put you all on notice. No excuses, now.

Reminds me of that Sam Kinison (Geez, I miss that guy. We need Sam now more than ever. I can only imagine his take on everything that's happened since September 11) routine with the Pope talking to the Gays:

"Suck the ----, lose the Kingdom. Romans I. Look, I didn't write the book, I just enforce it. C'mon, you got ---- on your breath, your stinkin' up the place, get outta here!"

Pedophile priests has a nice alliterative ring to it, but the term popularized by the mainstream (read antiCatholic liberal )press refers to what is better described as homosexual priests. The seductions usually involved teenagers, not little boys. Also, less than 3% of all priests have been accused nationally of wrongdoing, and not all the accused are/were guilty.

These seductions were gravely sinful and seriously wrong, but the campaign against a small number of priests, blown up with emotional issues that never properly belonged to the scandal, are an attempt to destroy the moral authority of the largest Christian church in the world. With that authority falsely questioned, the homosexual agenda to obtain the agenda's greatest prize - homosexual marriage - is almost in hand.

If you want to aid the enemy, support the campaign and buzzwords wrongfully applied to the campaign to destroy the Chuch. The campaign will not succeed (the gates of hell cannot prevail against it), but what most people do not want - the moral normalization homosexual relationships and marriage - may avalanche into unwanted reality. The spiritual harm that will follow that is unimaginable.

Actually, I'm happy to see the Pontiff taking a strong stance on this, particularly since the average Euro/American Cardinal is wishywashy at best, an enabler at worst, of the Gaystapo agenda. Only the Africans and Asians seem to take a strong stand on this issue.

22
posted on 07/29/2003 1:17:07 PM PDT
by Clemenza
(East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)

Yeah, because the Pope has never said anything about abortion (PUH-LEASE!), and has tons of diocese worldwide with no pedophile problem and a bunch of American bishops with a fidelity problem. It amazes me how people expect the Bishop of Rome to do all the other bishops' jobs in addition to the stellar performance he is doing as Christ's Vicar on earth.

Well, there is at least one bishop who's not following the craven crowd.

Oh, yeah? Well, my bishop told anyone who joined a pro-abortion/pro-sodomite organization to consider themselves excommunicated. And the archbishop wrote a public letter to the flock and told them it is anti-Church and anti-life to vote Democrat. These two bishops were doing this long before the bishop was appointed in Denver and cleaned out that nest of sodomy that called itself a seminary.

I'm rather proud of my bishops, considering that I am Baptist and have no use for Roman theology or authoritarianism otherwise. They're tough old-style Catholics and don't apologize for it.

See my preceding post. Do you think these bishops' positions have anything to do with my state being one of the all-red Bush states (every county voted Bush) or that my state has made repeated attempts to stop any fetal tissue experiments within its borders and has sent two major cases to the Supreme Court to challenge abortion law?

I think it's not a coincidence that our bishops take this position and the political situation in the state. I give the bishops a lot of credit for their bold stance. My bishops and RC neighbors are doing fine. The rest of you guys need to get busy.

Condeming abortion in general without any further action toward those supporting it is exactly the sort of lazy moral leadership that lead to the current problem. Support of abortion to the extent you assist other in obtaining them (pretty much all politicians fall in this category) carries an automatic excommunication. Where is this sort of pronouncement?

Then they are excommunicated. It doesn't need to be officially declared by the Church, and doing so is and I think (?) has always been quite rare.

It has been rare. But it does have a proper time and place. Proper use of public declarations of excommunication is to send clear messages to the faithful - including to the excommunicated themselves.

For example say there was a prominent and influential Catholic, say a United States Senator, who publically and repeatedly violated Church teaching on abortion. Say this Senator also publically traded on his membership in the Catholic Church. Say he was widely observed by fellow Catholics to be allowed to participate in the sacraments, and regularly meet on friendly terms with priests and bishops. The scandal this would cause is that the Church officials in question would be seen as accepting, or even condoning behavior that clearly violated Church teaching - whether they intended such a message or not. It would cause many of the faithful to believe that such behavior did not violate Church teaching after all.

This is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen today. On abortion, and a whole host of issues, one can observe prominent and influential Catholics defying Church teaching without consequence. That sends a powerful message that depersonalized statements, however orthodox, cannot entirely dispell.

The overall effect has been to dilute the moral authority of the Church. Catholics now openly defy the Church without feeling the least bit uncomfortable, nor the least bit less Catholic. There are plenty of examples of prominent Catholics defying he Church in exactly the same way while yucking it up with the bishops. Why should an average person who's bishop scarcely notices him be concerned?

Oh, I don't want to be arguing against it, per se. In my earliest post on this thread I was calling for excommunications, and I'd like to see a couple. But I would hesitate before saying the failure to pronounce excommunication was . . . a failure.

They are losing influence because they do absolutely NOTHING when they are defied. If they would start excommunicating these people then people would sit up and take notice when they say something. Right now, they can ignore the church and get away with it, so why not ignore them?

Where's Michael Hypocrite Moron to DEMAND they do what the Pope says? The blowhard egomanic was on TV a few monthes ago proclaiming how important it is to follow the wishes of the Pope when JPII says something it's a "sin".

Marriage is not a "Right," it is a construct of the State. The State can recognize any type of marriage it wants, based on the formula it recognizes as being the most conducive for successful procreation and nuturing of children.

Those who call marriage a "Right" are sadly mistaken! Human beings have the Right to engage in sexual activity with the consenting adult partner of their choice; they DO NOT have a Right to have their sexual relationship recognized by the State, blessed by the Churches, or accepted by society! Recognition, blessing, or acceptance are based upon the prevailing norms of the day...PERIOD!

I seem to recall something Paul said in one of his letters. He said that those who take the Body and Blood unworthily bring shame,or excommunication,or chastisement upon themselves.

It seems to me (and I wish I could find the passage) that if we would hear that in the sermons all over the country and the bishops and priests would expand on that,we could at least give the offenders and the observers some food for thought.

I believe that Truth has a compelling effect on the soul and the mind of man but the world is so full of make work projects many people do not have the time to think,and if they do,they are thinking about things that are of no matter or substance.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.